Community in Mission

One of the subtleties of language is the use of euphemisms.  A euphemism is a less offensive word or phrase used in place of another  term that might be considered too direct, harsh, unpleasant, or offensive. It substitutes an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that might offend or suggest something unpleasant. The word comes from the Greek  euphēmismos, which comes from eu (auspicious, good, pleasant) and phēmē (speech).

In many cases euphemisms are harmless, even rooted in a kind of charity and a desire not to offend unnecessarily. For example, we may say that someone has “passed away,” or “departed this life,” rather than that the person died. A woman may say she is going to “powder her nose” rather than that she is going to the bathroom. We may say a man is stocky, or a woman full-figured, rather than saying he or she is fat or overweight. Parents say they are going to have “the talk” with their kids or tell them about “the birds and bees,” rather than saying, “I’m going to talk to my kids about sex.”

In many ways these are polite circumlocutions that get across the basic message but seek to describe less pleasant notions in more pleasant or discreet ways.

Some euphemisms are downright silly: you aren’t poor, you are economically disadvantaged; a company isn’t failing it is being right-sized; you aren’t broke, you have negative cash flow; it’s not a used car, it’s pre-owned; your stocks aren’t losing money they’re underperforming; and that booze you’re drinking is an “adult beverage”—silly stuff, really.

But in some cases, euphemisms cause harm since they seek to deceive by hiding the truth of things that are morally wrong. It is one thing to describe a reality politely or softly, but it is quite another to outright hide the reality of something by using words meant more to distort or conceal.

Most odious is the use of phrases and terms meant to conceal the violent murder of a child in the womb by abortion. Thus proponents of this horrifying act use euphemisms such as “choice,” “reproductive rights,” “reproductive freedom,” “women’s health,” etc. Abortion facilities are called “clinics” or “Women’s Healthcare Centers.” The brutal reality is that the “choice” being advocated is the killing of a child in the womb, usually accomplished by methods such as chemical poisoning (abortifacients), chemical burning (saline), curettage (scraping), dismemberment, and suctioning. “Choice” and other such terms do not merely render this act more politely. Terms like this intentionally seek to deceive and to hide the awful reality of what is happening.

In the area of sexuality, too many euphemisms seek to render sinful things in more “pleasant” terms. These euphemisms are not merely polite terms but seek more to obscure and even celebrate what is sinful.

Thus what we used to call fornication, “living in sin,” or “shacking up” is now called “cohabitation,” “living together,” or “common law marriage.” Never mind that fornicators do not inherit the kingdom of God (e.g., 1 Cor 6:9; Eph 5:5; Gal 5:19-21) and that  this sort of behavior dishonors marriage and has caused great harm to families. Never mind the children who often die by abortion (85% of abortions are performed on single women) or if not still face the injustice of being raised in broken or incomplete homes.

Sadly, this sinful behavior is either rendered in abstract and pleasant terms, or even outright celebrated in popular culture. The euphemisms do not help in disclosing the reality that what is really going on here is illicit sexual union that is offensive to God, dishonoring of marriage (Heb 13:4), harmful to children, and destructive of culture.

And of course there are many euphemisms associated with homosexuality. Nothing could be more abstract and misleading than the term “gay.” Even homosexuality is a recently coined term to replace the biblical terms “sodomy” and “sodomite.” And while the Church is careful to distinguish between the orientation and the actual sin of homosexual acts, we must be clear that even the orientation is disordered. That is, the desire is not ordered to its proper goal. So euphemistic is the word “gay” that most people never even stop to consider what homosexual acts actually involve.

A recent article by Kevin O’Brien in Gilbert: The Magazine of the Chesterton Society speaks to the modern problem we face wherein homosexual acts are considered only abstractly:

Take the recent flap involving Phil Robertson of duck dynasty … who made what was once the rather normal observation that our sex organs are not designed for the degraded use that is made of them by male homosexuals …

The problem was that Robertson did not use euphemisms, but described rather vividly and accurately what “gay” sex consists of (Page 3, vol 17, No 4, Jan/Feb 2014).

Frankly, the physical reality is rather an unpleasant thing for the average person to consider. Uncloaked from euphemisms and abstractions like “gay,” and “two people loving each other,” the physical description of the act discloses to the average person how abnormal the action is, and that the organs involved are not intended for the purposes for which they are being used.

Frank language alert. Skip this paragraph if you do not wish to read non-euphemistic descriptions of sexual behavior. To be utterly non-euphemistic, an anus is intended to assist in the expelling of feces. It is not a sexual organ and those who use it as such (homosexual or heterosexual) engage in disordered sexual behavior. They deviate from what nature and God provide for and intend. It is no surprise that disease, tearing, and infection result from this sort of unhealthy behavior. Likewise too for the mutual masturbation that occurs in the other deviant and disordered practices of both homosexuals and some heterosexual couples.

O’Brien Continues:

Calling a spade a spade, as Phil Robertson did, blows the cover under which the abnormal folks are hiding – the cover of euphemism – of coming up with a false and fancy way of saying something to gloss over and obscure the truth it represents. GK Chesterton said it best, “[Many] depend almost entirely on euphemism. They introduce their horrible heresies under new and carefully complementary names … The names are always flattery; the names are also nonsense.”

O’Brien  Concludes: The furor of the “gay” community over Robertson’s statement belies a troubled conscience. (Ibid)

Other troubling euphemisms exist such as calling patient suicide or the killing of the sick and dying “euthanasia” (from the Greek, meaning good or pleasant death). It is not good; it is sinful. It is either suicide or murder, but in no way is it good and it cannot be captured in abstract terms like euthanasia. Human beings have souls and are not meant to be “put down” like animals. Suffering is clarifying, sanctifying, and noble for human beings. We are not required to prolong life by absurd means. But neither should we diminish the dignity of human life and the dignity of those who suffer by killing them.

There are a lot of euphemisms in the areas of war and politics as well. I will avoid discussing political euphemisms since this is not a political blog. But regarding war, I will say that we have tended to try to obscure the fact that war is awful. What we call “collateral damage” means that a lot of innocent people were killed or had their homes and neighborhoods bombed back to the Stone Age. At the end of the day, war is about killing people and breaking a lot of things; it is a foretaste of Hell. No euphemism (e.g., an action, an incursion, a coalition, a “war to end all wars,” “Operation Freedom,” etc.) can or should seek to cover this fact. I am no pacifist, but we need to be clear that war is terrible; it is bloody; and once a war is begun, it is VERY difficult to ensure that even the best intentions do not turn sour and evil in its fog. War sets loose and invites the very demons of Hell; it is ugly and awful no matter what party or president calls for it. It is no video game, and it should always be a last recourse used only in the gravest of circumstances.

So euphemisms have a place when charity and discretion are the goal. But too easily and too often today euphemisms are not used in charity but rather to hide the truth and to render abstract and murky what is sinful and wrong. We do well to insist on honesty in labeling. Charity, yes, but the truth cannot be sacrificed. Veritatem in Caritate (The Truth in Charity).

In the first reading for Tuesday’s daily Mass, there is a remarkable description of an event in the lives of Paul and Silas. And even more remarkable than the event itself is their reaction to it. Let’s pick up the story as told in Acts:

The crowd in Philippi joined in the attack on Paul and Silas, and the magistrates had them stripped and ordered them to be beaten with rods. After inflicting many blows on them, they threw them into prison and instructed the jailer to guard them securely. When he received these instructions, he put them in the innermost cell and secured their feet to a stake (Acts 16:22-25).

It is so easy for us to read passages like this and miss the severity of what happened. The two are beaten with rods. Such beatings might vary somewhat in degree, but the overall severity of the passage (e.g., having them cast into the deepest part of the prison and the jailer later having to bathe their wounds) leads to the reasonable conclusion that the beating was also quite severe. Beatings like these would often lead to deep bruises and contusions, both external and internal bleeding, broken ribs, and trauma to the kidneys and other internal organs.

After this severe beating, and likely bloody and in severe pain, they are ordered bound by leg shackles and cast into the deepest and darkest part of the prison. In this inner part, there were probably rats, snakes, mice, and vermin. There was likely also foul water, along with urine and feces.

No matter how we look at it, the external dimensions of both the prison and their pain are grave. It would be enough to have the average person in despair, self pity, and perhaps even a semiconscious state.

Yet what do we find?

About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the other prisoners were listening to them (Acts 16:26).

Yes! Despite an awful beating, severe pain, and terrible conditions, they are singing and praising God. It is loud enough that the other prisoners in other parts of the prison hear them.

And here is a remarkable teaching: happiness is an inside job. Paul and Silas, despite every external discomfort and tremendous physical pain, have a joy that cannot be taken away. They have a connection to God that cannot be severed.

It is too often the case today that we strive to root our happiness in external matters such as money, esteem, creature comforts, and the like. And yet it remains true that many who have these things in abundance are still unhappy, and conversely that many who lack these things in abundance are happy.

There is something deeper about happiness than mere comfort, riches, or externalities. I remember some years ago talking with the personnel director of the diocese about an impending transfer. I told him of my fear that I might be sent somewhere where I would not be happy. He told me, “Charles, you have been in four assignments now and have been happy at every one. The fact is, you’re going to be happy wherever you go, because that’s the way you are. Happiness is an inside job.”

I have come to discover he was right, and I’ve never been unhappy wherever they’ve sent me. There’s a joy I have that the world didn’t give to me and the world cannot take away.

Sure, there are moments of sorrow and tension in every life. But deeper down there is a stable serenity that the Lord has given me for which I am exceptionally grateful. And I have come to discover that deep, inner place of peace, joy, and contentment; and I have further discovered that it is largely unaffected by external realities.

There is a Greek word, “μακάριοι (makarioi),” which describes a kind of stable happiness or blessed state. The pagan Greeks used the verb to refer to the happiness of the gods, unaffected by worldly matters. Jesus takes up this verb in the beatitudes: Blessed (μακάριοι – happy) are the poor in spirit, the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs. In other words, “Stably blessed and happy are those who have their treasure in Heaven, rather than this passing and unstable world.”

Here then is a gift to be sought: the gift of an inner and stable happiness, the gift to be like Paul and Silas, to bless the Lord at all times, whatever the circumstances. This of course is the “normal Christian life.” As Scripture says,

I will bless the LORD at all times: his praise shall continually be in my mouth (Psalm 34:1).

And Paul himself says,

Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal (2 Cor 4:16-18).

And again he said, Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! (Phil 4:4)

Yes the normal Christian life is to be one of joy, a joy largely unaffected by external events and accessible even in moments of sorrow. It is a joy in which a consolation, difficult to describe, is always at work.

Two final things to note from this passage about Paul and Silas, are the ways that their joy and confident disposition affect others. There is an old saying, “When I get better, others get better too.” In other words, we have important effects on others around us.

The first thing to note is the liberating power of their joy and confidence. For the text says, there was suddenly such a severe earthquake that the foundations of the jail shook; all the doors flew open, and the chains of all were pulled loose (Acts 16:27). It is the role of the Christian to exude joy, and to show a confidence that liberates others from the prison cells of despair, sin, and depression. Do people see you as a person of hope? Does your joy liberate and give confidence?

Second, note the love that is manifested by Paul and Silas and how that love moves the jailer to repentance and conversion. The text tells us, When the jailer woke up and saw the prison doors wide open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, thinking that the prisoners had escaped. But Paul shouted out in a loud voice, Do no harm to yourself; we are all here. Now consider that the jailer may well have been one of the men who beat them with rods. And at a human level, the average person might rejoice to see the jailer try to kill himself. But Paul, not wanting the jailer to take his own life, calls out and seeks to save him, even at the risk being re-imprisoned. So moved is the jailer by this demonstration of love and faith, that he seeks immediate conversion. How has your love and reverence for life won the hearts of others?

Yes, happiness is an inside job. Here is a gift to be sought from God: a transformation to an inner peace that is stable and largely unaffected by external things. What a gift this is both to us and to others around us! For when I get better, others get better too.

Here’s some good advice form an old Spiritual, rooted in the story of Paul and Silas:

Paul and Silas bound in jail
Had no money for to go their bail
Keep your Hand on the Plow and Hold on!

And they wore three lengths of Chain
Every link was in my Jesus’ name.
Keep your Hand on the Plow and Hold on!

When the storms are raging High
You suffer and you can’t tell why
Keep your Hand on the Plow and Hold on!

Keep on plowing don’t you tire
Every Round goes higher, higher.
Keep your Hand on the Plow and Hold on!

I told you once, and I’ll tell you again
You can’t get to heaven if you’re stayed on sin
Keep your Hand on the Plow and Hold on!

I you wanna get to heaven let me tell you
Keep your hand on the gospel plow
Keep your Hand on the Plow and Hold on!

A couple of years back, a remarkable book was published by Ross Douthat. I recommend it as required reading for anyone who wants to grasp what has happened to faith in the second half of the 20th Century up until now. It is Bad Religion – How we became a nation of heretics. It seems good to review some of his findings, since these heresies seem only to grow in the consumerist West, where we take attitudes that are fine for commercial markets and misapply them to the faith. We end up with a “designer” religion, designed to please the customer rather than proclaim the truth of our founder and Head, Jesus Christ.

In the book, Douthat documented how the churches (both the Catholic Church and the Protestant denominations) rose dramatically in the years following World War II, but then quite suddenly saw their numbers collapse as they were overwhelmed with successive waves of heresies, which he describes with great precision.

Douthat uses the word “heresy” quite correctly to describe a version of the Christian faith that holds an incomplete version of the full truth, one that chooses certain tenets and discards many others that both balance and complete the picture. Of course there are often tensions in holding all the truths.

For example, how do we reconcile God’s sovereignty and power with our freedom and capacity to say “No”? Or how do we resolve God’s mercy and love with the existence of Hell? The orthodox approach is to hold both and leave the tensions largely unresolved, or at least to seek a balance that respects both. The heretical approach is to chose one and discard or minimize the other in order to be free of the tension.

Heresy has become quite the “art” of modern Americans who are often “genius” in crafting endless varieties of do-it-yourself faith: one from column A, two from column B. For most Americans, the Church is largely irrelevant, and tends to be considered an annoyance, what with all her rules and traditions. Hence while most Americans identify themselves as believing in God, the actual content of that belief varies significantly and often diverges widely from orthodox Christianity not to mention orthodox Catholicism.

God as He reveals himself in Scripture is quite easily tossed aside by moderns, and a tamed, more “fitting” god is crafted—one who affirms more than demands, one who consoles and almost never warns.

We used to call this idolatry (crafting your own god and worshipping it). But most moderns prefer softer terms such as “finding the god within,” and discovering the “god of my understanding.” Truth is cast overboard or doubted altogether and a self-referential (solipsistic) thinking emerges that is self-authorized.  Along with this private magisterium comes a self-congratulatory “tolerance” that is extolled as the highest virtue. If there is any reference at all to the revelation that is Scripture or to the dogmas of the faith, most moderns interpret them in a highly selective (i.e., heretical) manner, and subject what does remain to interpretations that are often so twisted as to be almost impossible to follow.

What makes heresy so dangerous is that it most often contains some truthful elements. As such, many believers can easily be duped by the “partial Gospel.” Plausible teachers, using smooth words, seem to be confirming some truth of Christian faith. But they stop short of the full Gospel. For example, the purveyors of the “Prosperity Gospel” extol the power of prayer and the truth that God does want to bless us. But they largely discard the cross and the call of Christ to endure hardships and even poverty for the Kingdom. Gone is any notion that we have been called out of this world and are thus hated by the world, or the idea that we cannot serve both God and money. They also conveniently set aside the very consistent warnings about wealth issued by the Lord Jesus.

But it all sounds so good and so right: pray, trust God, blessings in abundance! Doesn’t God want me to be happy? Yes, and thus heresy has its appeal in pointing to some truths, but it ignores others meant to balance, distinguish, and contextualize.

Consider another huge trend in the modern age that has sorely affected faith: the rise of the therapeutic culture. Douthat spends a good amount of time describing and critiquing it. Quoting Philip Rieff he begins,

“Religious man was born to be saved [but] “psychological man is born to be pleased.” [Philip Rieff, The Triumph of the Therapeutic, Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2006, 19].

Douthat continues,

God is something like a combination Divine Butler and Cosmic Therapist: he is always on call, takes care of any problem that arises, professionally helps his people to feel better about themselves.” … [He] is not demanding, He actually can’t be, because his job is to solve our problems and make people feel good.

 Therapeutic religion is immensely tolerant: since the only true God is the one you find within, there’s no reason to impose your faith on someone else. But a tolerant society is not necessarily a just one. Men may smile at their neighbors without loving them and decline to judge their fellow citizens’ beliefs out of a broader indifference to their fate. [Tolerance can] easily turn out to be an ego that never learns sympathy, compassion, or real wisdom.

Therapeutic to its very core, it emphasizes feelings over duties, it’s impatient with institutional structures of any sort. [Kindle Edition Loc:4676-95]

Has it worked? Apart from the troubling heretical notions at work (again, heresy understood in terms of its classical definition, as an incomplete and unbalanced grasp of the true faith),  has the therapeutic religion worked even in its basic goal to “make us feel better about ourselves”? Douthat observes,

We’re freer than we used to be [since everyone can think and be what they want and construct their own little world largely freed from critique by a “tolerant” culture], but [we’re] also more isolated, lonelier, and more depressed … Therapeutic theology raises expectations, and it raises self-regard. It isn’t surprising that people taught to be constantly enamored of their own godlike qualities [since they are trained to discover the “god-within] would have difficulty forging relationships with ordinary human beings. Two Supreme Selves do not necessarily a happy marriage make.

Americans are less happy in their marriages than they were thirty years ago; women’s self-reported happiness has dipped downward overall. Our social circles have constricted: declining rates of churchgoing have been accompanied by declining rates of just about every sort of social “joining,” and Americans seem to have fewer and fewer friends whom they genuinely trust. Our familial networks have shrunk as well. More children are raised by a single parent; fewer people marry or have children to begin with; and more and more old people live and die alone.

Our society boasts 77,000 clinical psychologists, 192,000 clinical social workers, 105,000 mental health counselors, 50,000 marriage and family therapists, 17,000 nurse psychotherapists, 30,000 life coaches—and hundreds of thousands of nonclinical social workers and substance abuse counselors as well. Most of these professionals spend their days helping people cope with everyday life problems … not true mental illness. This means that under our very noses a revolution has occurred in the personal dimension of life, such that millions of Americans must now pay professionals to listen to their everyday life problems … gurus and therapists have filled the roles once occupied by spouses and friends. [Kindle version Loc:4819-38, inter al].

So no, it hasn’t worked. But its purveyors just keep coming out with the latest tome by the latest guru. To be fair, as Douthat notes, there are many causes of the social ills described above. But the therapeutic culture and its “spiritual (not religious!)” expressions do raise expectations for a great cure. Orthodox Catholicism on the other hand traditionally spoke of this world as a vale of tears and an exile to be endured before true and lasting happiness dawned. Contentment could be found here, and true faith is essential to that. But lasting happiness was found only in the Lord, and fully, only in Heaven. For now we should gather as a Church and console one another with the consolations we have received, and continue to retell the story of total victory promised us in the Lord, after the Good Friday of this life gives way to the Eternal Easter of Heaven.

But another reason the inward and highly personalized faith of the therapeutic culture does not work is that it rejects the communion for which we were ultimately made.

St. Augustine summarized our most fundamental problem as being “curvatus in se.” That is, on account of Original Sin, the human person will tend to be turned in on himself. This of course is exactly what a lot of modern versions of heretical religion peddle: a highly personalized, inwardly focused search for “God.” And it is a search that is apart from the community of the Church and the extended community of Sacred tradition. Chesterton called tradition the “democracy of the dead,” since it gave them a voice and a seat at the table. Through Tradition and doctrine we have communion, not only with each other, but also with the ancient Christians.

But modern heresy turns inward to a very lonely and rather dark place. It rejects the need for a Church or for any doctrines at all. Alone and turned inward, we cannot be fulfilled. It is no accident that the therapeutic “faith” emanating from a therapeutic culture is not fulfilling.

The real truth is that we were made for others and for God. Communion with God, and with each other in God, is THE goal of life. Christ founded a Church, and summoned us to a relationship with the Blessed Trinity. But it is the Trinity as revealed, not as reworked by us.

The “god-within” of modern heresy, is more often a mere emanation of our very self, a solipsism (from the Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self)). And “tolerance,” the way it is spoken of today (it is not true tolerance, more on that  HERE), does not join us together in harmony as advertised, it separates us into our own little worlds where “what’s true for me doesn’t have to be true for you.” Increasingly, we live in the little world of our own mind and are pulling up roots from any shared reality. God, if he is understood at all by these modern heresies, is a very local deity, who exists only in the mind of one person and is subject to later redefinition. He (or she? or it?) is a small and very contingent deity that has little role other than, as Douthot keenly observes, to be our butler.

One of the great challenges for us today, then, is to re-propose the need for the Church that Christ founded. He did not write a book and send us off to study it. He founded a community—a Church—and told us we would find Him there, where two or three are gathered in His name, where His actual words are read and heard, where His true body and blood are offered and received. Many are scandalized that He should be found among sinners, gossips, hypocrites, and the like (and saints too!). But that is where He is found. Indeed, one image for the Church is Christ, crucified between two thieves (one repented!). Yes that is where He is found: in the Church. And only within the Church and her careful, thoughtful doctrines and the accumulated wisdom of centuries is the journey to find God within us safe enough to consider. For yes, He does dwell within us too. But don’t make the journey there alone—no, never alone.

Memorial Day, for many, means the beginning of summer. To others, it is a day off to go shopping. But as I am sure you know, Memorial Day is really a day to honor those who have died in the service of this country. Here are some thoughts based on two words from a day like this: “memorial” and “monument.” 

The word “memorial” comes from the Latin “memorare,” which is in an  imperative meaning “Remember!” So Memorial Day is “Remember!” Day. To remember something is to allow it to be present to our minds and hearts so that we are grateful, sober, aware, and different.

This is a day to remember that there are men and women who have died so that you and I are able to live with greater security, justice, and peace. May these fallen soldiers rest in peace. We owe them both a debt of gratitude and our prayers.

In a secondary sense, we can also honor today those who currently serve in the military since they also have placed their lives on the line for our security and peace. And on Veterans Day we will have a second opportunity to thank those military who are still living.

God bless them all and may the dead rest in peace. We must remember that freedom is not really free—others paid the price for our freedom.

The second word is “monument.” There are many monuments honoring our fallen soldiers. Here in DC and in most cities there is a monument to the soldiers who died during World War II. There are other monuments to the dead from from World War I, the Korean War, and the War in Vietnam. Soon enough there will be monuments to the fallen from the Gulf War and to those who gave their lives in other wars. The Tomb of the Unknowns is a poignant monument to the many fallen who remain unknown to us. And who can forget the deep impression the rows of white crosses in a military cemetery make.

The word “monument” comes from the Latin words “monere” (to warn, remind, or advise) and “mens” (mind).  Hence a “monument” exists to admonish or advise us to remember the dead and/or what they have done. Not only do we owe a debt of gratitude to our fallen soldiers, but we must also hold in our memories all they have done for us.

The Love of one’s country (patriotism) is related to the fourth commandment. The Catechism teaches,

It is the duty of citizens to contribute to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity and freedom. The love and service of one’s country follow from the the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity (CCC # 2239).

The Lord Himself makes it plain: “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:13).

Never forget the price others have paid for our freedom. Pray for our fallen soldiers of every generation and for their families. Perhaps you might use this video as a way to meditate on the sacrifices they have made. Here is the text of the song “Mansions of the Lord,” and the video follows:

To fallen soldiers let us sing,
Where no rockets fly nor bullets wing,
Our broken brothers let us bring
To the Mansions of the Lord

No more weeping,
No more fight,
No prayers pleading through the night,
Just Divine embrace,
Eternal light,
In the Mansions of the Lord

Where no mothers cry
And no children weep,
We shall stand and guard
Though the angels sleep,
Oh, through the ages safely keep
The Mansions of the Lord

In the Gospel for today’s Mass, Jesus gives us three lessons on love, which are meant to prepare us for the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. They also go a long way towards describing the normal Christian life.

Too many Christians see the Christian Faith more as a set of rules to keep than as a love that transforms—if we accept it. Let’s take a look at the revolutionary life of love and grace that the Lord is offering us in three stages: the POWER of love, the PERSON of love, and the PROOF of love.

1. THE POWER OF LOVE – In the text Jesus says, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments … Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me.”

We must be very careful how we hear this. For it is possible to hear the Lord say, in effect, “If you love me, prove it by keeping my commandments.” And this is how many hear it. And thus the text and the Christian faith are reduced to a kind of moral maxim: do good, avoid evil, and thus prove you love God. Loving God, then, becomes a kind of human achievement.

But understanding this text from the standpoint of grace yields a different—and I would argue more proper—understanding. For loving God is not a human work, but rather the gift of God. So the text should be read to say, in effect, “If you love me, you will by this love I have given you, keep my commandments.” Thus, the keeping of the commandments is the fruit of the love, not the cause of it. Love comes first. And when love is received and experienced, we begin, by the power of that love, to keep the commandments. Love is the power by which we keep the commandments.

It is possible to keep the commandments to some extent out of fear and by the flesh. But obedience based on fear tends not to last and brings with it many resentments. Further, attempting to keep the commandments through our own power brings not only exhaustion and frustration, but also the prideful delusion that somehow we have placed God in our debt because we obey.

It is far better to keep the commandments by the grace of God’s love at work within us. Consider the following qualities of love:

A. Love is extravagant –  The flesh is minimalist and asks, “Do I really have to do this?” But love is extravagant and wants to do more than the minimum. Consider a young man who loves a young woman. It is unlikely that he would say, “Your birthday is coming soon and I must engage in the wearisome tradition of buying you a gift. So, what is the cheapest and quickest gift I can get you?” Of course he would not say this! Love does not ask questions like this. Love is extravagant; it goes beyond the minimal requirements and even lavishes gifts on the beloved, eagerly. Love has the power to overrule the selfishness of the flesh. No young man would say to his beloved, “What is the least amount of time I have to spend with you?” Love doesn’t talk or think like this. Love wants to spend time with the beloved. Love has the power to transform our desires from our own selfish ends, toward the beloved.

Now while these examples might seem obvious, it is apparently not so obvious to many Christians who say they love God but then ask such things as, “Do I have to go to church?”, “Do I have pray? And if so, how often, and for how long?”, “Do I have to go to confession? And if so, how frequently?”, “What’s the least amount I can put in the collection plate or give to the poor  to be in compliance?” Asking for guidelines may not be wrong, but too often the question amounts to a version of “What’s the least I can do? What’s the bare minimum?”

Love is extravagant and excited to do and to give, to please the beloved. Love is its own answer, its own power.

B. Love Expands – When we really love someone we also learn to love whom and what he or she loves.

During high school, I dated a girl who liked square dancing. At first I thought it was hokey. But since she liked it, I started to like it. Over time, I even came to enjoy it a great deal. Love expanded my horizons.

I have lived, served, and loved in the Black community for most of my priesthood. In those years, I have come to love and respect Gospel music and the spirituals. I have also come to respect and learn from the Black experience of spirituality, and have done extensive study on the history of the African-American experience. This is all because I love the people I serve. And when you love people, you begin to love and appreciate what they do. Love expands our horizons.

And what if we really begin to love God? The more His love takes root in us, the more we love the things and the people He loves. We begin to have God’s priorities. We start to love justice, mercy, chastity, and all the people He loves—even our enemies. Love expands our hearts.

The saints say, “If God wants it, I want it. If God doesn’t want it, I don’t want it.” Too many Christians say, “How come I can’t have it? It’s not so bad. Everyone else is doing it … ” But love does not speak this way.

And as God’s love grows in us, it has the power to change our hearts, our minds, our desires, and our vision. The more we love God, the more we love His commands and share the vision He offers for our lives. Love expands our hearts and minds.

C. Love excites – Imagine again a young man who loves a young woman. Now suppose she asks him to drive her to work one day because her car is in the shop. He does this gladly and sees it as an opportunity to be with her and to help her. He is excited to do so and is glad she asked. This is true even if he has to go miles out of his way. Love stirs us to fulfill the wishes and desires of the beloved.

In the first Letter of John we read, “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3). Yes, love lightens every load. And as we grow in love for God, we are excited to please Him. We keep His commandments, not because we have to, but because we want to. And even if His commandments involve significant changes, we do it with the same kind of gladness that fills a young man driving miles out of his way to take his beloved to work. Love excites in us a desire to keep God’s law, to fulfill His wishes for us.

2. THE PERSON OF LOVE – The text says, “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows him. But you know him, because he remains with you, and will be in you.”

In this text, Jesus tells us that the power to change us is not just an impersonal power, like “The Force” in Star Wars. Rather, what changes us is not a “what” but “who.” The Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, living in us as in a temple, will change us and stir us to love. He who is Love will love God in us. Love is not our work; it is the work of God. “We love, because He first loved us” (1 John 4:10). God the Holy Spirit enables us to love God the Father and God the Son. And this love is the power in us that equips, empowers, and enables us to keep God’s law. He, the Holy Spirit, is the one who enables us to love extravagantly and in a way that expands and excites.

The Lord says that He, the Holy Spirit, remains in us. Are you aware of His presence? Too often our minds and hearts are dulled and distracted by the world and we are unaware of the power of love available to us. The Holy Spirit of Jesus and the Father is gentle and awaits the open doors we provide (cf Rev 3:20). As we open them, a power from His Person becomes more and more available to us, and we see our lives being transformed. We keep the commandments; we become more loving, confident, joyful, chaste, forgiving, merciful, and holy.  I am a witness! Are you? This leads us to the final point.

3. THE PROOF OF GOD’s LOVE – The text says, “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me, because I live and you will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father and you are in me and I in you.”

The key phrases here are, “You will live,” and “You will realize.” For the Lord says that he will not leave us as orphans, that he will come to us and remain with us.

How do you know that these are more than just slogans? Simply put, you and I know this because of the new life we are receiving, which causes us to realize that Jesus lives, is in the Father, and is in us.

To “know” in the Bible is more than intellectual knowing. To “know” in the Bible is to “have intimate and personal experience of the thing or person known.” I know Jesus is alive and in me through His Holy Spirit because I am experiencing my life changing. I am seeing sins put to death and graces coming alive! I am a new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5:17). This is what Jesus means when He says, “You will realize that I am in the Father and in you.” To “realize” means to experience something as real.

The proof of God’s love and its power to transform is me! It is my life. In the laboratory of my own life I have tested God’s word and His promises. And I can report to you that they are true! I have come to experience as real (i.e., “realized”) that Jesus lives, that through His Holy Spirit I have a power available to me to keep the commandments and to embrace the new life, the new creation they both describe and offer to me.

I am a witness, are you?

This song says, “He changed my life and now I’m free … ”

The video below is a dramatization (sort of) of the story of Samson and Delilah as well as a commentary on lust and power. In case you would like to review the story of Samson and Delilah, CLICK HERE.

As the video opens, two superheroes are summoned to an emergency. They rush to the scene, but in a reckless fashion, and a great crash occurs. And here is a symbol for pride, for too often we rush headlong into solving problems, but often with little concern for other problems we may create in the process. For example, our quest to “end poverty in our time” has resulted more in the demise of the family; our quest to liberate the world from tyranny (through violence, drone strikes, and war) has led more often to inciting even more violence, and to the rise of new villainies.

After the crash, the superheroes seek to blame each other for the accident. And here is an image for our tendency to shift blame and avoid personal responsibility. We speak endlessly of our rights and the freedom to do as we please, but we want none of the responsibility. And of course any consequences are someone else’s fault.

There then ensues a great conflict between them to wrest control of the situation. And here is an image for power and the desire to overpower others. It merely serves to usher in a brutal and deadly struggle—one in which ultimately no one can win. Rather, all suffer devastating loss. Even victory is brief before the cycle of violence repeats.

Our male superhero, let’s call him Samson, seems to have the upper hand in the conflict. But the female superhero, let’s call her Delilah, is not to be undone and seeks to overcome Samson through her charms. And here is lust. For Samson, whatever his strengths, has a fatal flaw that destroys many men—lust. And as a result of it, many men (and women) and have ruined their lives. They’ve brought on poverty, STDs, abortion, teenage pregnancy, shattered dreams, broken families, and broken hearts.

The end of both of these superheroes is death and destruction. For pride, irresponsibility, unrestrained power, and lust unleash only devastation, destruction, and death—both individually and collectively.

In the biblical story, though Delilah “won,” it was only for a moment. And so it is with every worldly victory; it is temporary at best. Only heavenly victory and treasure stored up there will prevail. The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23).

In the first readings these past few days at Mass, we have recounted for us (in Acts) the Council of Jerusalem, which scholars generally date to around 50 AD. The Council was a pivotal moment in the history of the Church since it would set forth an identity for the Church that was independent from the culture of Judaism per se, and it would open wide the door of inculturation to the Gentiles. This surely had a significant impact upon evangelization in the early Church.

Catholic ecclesiology is evident here in that we see a very Catholic model of how the Church deals with a matter of significant pastoral practice and doctrine properly. In effect what we see is the same model that the Catholic Church has used right up to the present day. In this and in all subsequent Ecumenical Councils, there is a gathering of the Bishops, presided over by the Pope, that considers and even debates a matter. If consensus cannot be reached, the Pope resolves the disagreement. Once a decision is reached, a letter is issued to the entire Church and the decision is considered binding.

All these elements are seen in this first council, though in somewhat seminal form. Let’s consider this First Council of the Church in Jerusalem (c. 50 AD), beginning first with the remote preparation.

1. Bring in the Gentiles! – The Lord, just before ascending, gave the Apostles the great commission: Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19). Hence, the Gentiles are now to be summoned  and included in the ranks of discipleship and in the ranks of the Church.

2. But it looks like the Church was mighty slow in beginning any outreach to the Gentiles. It is true that on the day of Pentecost people from every nation heard the Sermon of Peter and 3000 were converted. By they were all Jews (Acts 2). In fact, it seems that at first, the Church did little to leave Jerusalem and go anywhere, let alone to all the nations.

3. Perhaps as a swift kick in the pants, the Lord allowed a persecution to break out in Jerusalem after the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7). This caused the Gospel to begin a northward trek, at least into Samaria. Samaritans however are not usually considered Gentiles, since they were a group that had intermarried with Jews in the 8th Century BC. There is also the Baptism of an Ethiopian Official, but he too was a Jew.

4. Fifteen Years?! The time line of Acts is a bit speculative. However if we study it carefully and compare it to some of what Paul says (esp. in Galatians), it would seem that it was probably 12–15 years before the baptism of the first Gentile! If this is true then it is a disgrace. There were, of course, strong racial animosities between Jews and Gentiles that may explain the slow response to Jesus’ commission. But though it explains the delay, it does not excuse it.

5. Time for another kick in the pants. This time the Lord went to Peter, who was praying on a rooftop in Joppa, and by means of a vision, taught him that he was not to call unclean what God had called clean. The Lord then sent to Peter an entourage from Cornelius, a high Roman military official seeking baptism. Cornelius, of course, was a Gentile. The entourage requests that Peter go with them to meet Cornelius at Cesarea. At first Peter is reluctant, but then recalling the vision (kick in the pants) that God had given him, decides to go. In Cesarea he does something unthinkable. Peter, a Jew, enters the house of a Gentile. Peter has learned his lesson, and as the first Pope has been guided by God to do what is right and just. After a conversation with Cornelius and the whole household, and aided by signs from the Holy Spirit, Peter has them baptized. Praise the Lord! It was about time. (All of this is detailed in Acts 10.)

6. Many were not happy with what Peter had done and confront him on it. Peter explains his vision as well as the manifestation of the Holy Spirit and then insists that this is how it is going to be. While it is a true that these early Christians felt freer to question Peter than we would the Pope today, it is also a fact that what Peter has done is binding even if some of them don’t like it. What Peter has done will stand. Once Peter has answered them definitively, they reluctantly assent and declare (somewhat cynically): “God has granted life-giving repentance even to the Gentiles!” (Acts 11:18)

7. Trouble Brewing – So the mission to the Gentiles is finally open! But that does not mean that trouble is over. As Paul, Barnabas, and others begin to bring in large numbers of Gentile converts, some among the Jewish Christians begin to object that the converts are not like Jews. They insist that the Gentiles be circumcised and follow the whole of Jewish Law, not just the moral precepts but also the cultural norms: kosher diet, purification rites, etc. That is where we picked up the story in yesterday’s Mass.

8. The Council of Jerusalem – Luke is a master of understatement and says, “Because there arose no little dissension and debate … ” (Acts 15:2) it was decided to ask the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem to gather and consider the matter. So the Apostles and some presbyters (priests) with them meet. Peter is there, of course, as is James, who was especially prominent in Jerusalem among the Apostles and would later become bishop. Once again, Luke rather humorously understates the matter by saying, “After much debate, Peter arose” (Acts 15:7).

In effect, Peter arises to settle the matter since, it would seem, the Apostles and presbyters are divided.  Had not Peter received this charge from the Lord? The Lord had prophesied, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded to sift you all like wheat but I have prayed for you Peter, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers (Luke 22:31-32). Now Peter fulfills this text, as he will again, and as will every Pope after him.

In his remarks, St. Peter dismisses the notion that the Gentiles should be made to take up the whole burden of Jewish customs. Paul and Barnabas rise to support this. Then James (who, though while it is not clear, may have felt otherwise) rises to assent to the decision and asks that a letter be sent forth to all the Churches explaining the decision. He also asks for and obtains a few concessions.

So there you have it—the First Council. And that Council, like all the Church-wide Councils that would follow, was a gathering of the bishops in the presence of Peter (the Pope), who worked to unite them. A decision was made, and a decree, binding on the whole Church,  was sent out—very Catholic, actually. We have kept this biblical model ever since. Our Protestant brethren have departed from it because they have no Pope to settle things when they dispute. They have split endlessly into tens of thousands of denominations and factions. When no one is pope, every one is pope.

A final thought – Notice how the decree to the Churches is worded: It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us (Acts 15:28). In the end, we trust the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in matters of faith and morals. We trust that decrees and doctrines that issue forth from Councils of the Bishops with the Pope are inspired by and authored by the Holy Spirit Himself. And there it is, right in Scripture, the affirmation that when the Church speaks solemnly in this way it is not just some bishops and the Pope as men, it is the Holy Spirit who speaks with them.

The Church—so very Catholic from the start!

A brief consideration from my Our Sunday Visitor column of last week:

Q: My daughter says she loves Jesus but just doesn’t like the Church (for lots of reasons). She doesn’t see any problem with this and doesn’t think going to Church is necessary. Is there anything I can say to her? – Name withheld, via email.

A: The Church is the Body of Christ (cf Col 1:8; 1 Cor 12:27; Rom 12:4-6). Hence to declare love for Jesus but disdain for His body is inauthentic. We cannot have Jesus without His Body.

How would your daughter feel if someone said to her, “I love you, but your body is awful, ugly, and I can’t stand it”? She would not appreciate this and would reject any artificial distinctions between herself and her body. It is the same with Jesus.

Perhaps if your daughter can be taught to understand the rather insulting quality of her position and that it renders her love for Jesus inauthentic, she will reconsider.

Certainly there are both sinners and imperfections in Jesus’ Body, the Church. But even historically (in the Bible), Jesus was found in the “strange company” of sinners. Many in Jesus’ time were scandalized by the associations He maintained. But Jesus is found where He is found, not where we want Him to be.

So if your daughter loves Jesus and really wants to find Him, she needs to join the rest of us poor sinners. Christ and His Body are one.

Here is an old hymn of the Church. And, despite its Protestant origins, it has a very solid ecclesiology. I would only quibble with the first line, in which Jesus is referred to as the Church’s ONE foundation—especially given that Jesus spoke of building His Church on the Rock of Peter. Catholics can accept the line that Jesus is the Church’s one foundation in terms of primary causality, but we must also insist (with Scripture) that Peter is the rock in terms of secondary causality. In other words, Jesus supports Peter, who is the rock. Otherwise, though, the hymn is accurate and beautiful:

1 The Church’s one foundation
is Jesus Christ her Lord.
She is his new creation
by water and the word.
From heaven he came and sought her
to be his holy Bride.
With his own blood he bought her,
and for her life he died.

2 Elect from every nation,
yet one o’er all the earth,
her charter of salvation:
one Lord, one faith, one birth.
One holy name she blesses,
partakes one holy food,
and to one hope she presses,
with every grace endued.

3 Though with a scornful wonder
this world sees her oppressed,
by schisms rent asunder,
by heresies distressed,
yet saints their watch are keeping;
their cry goes up: “How long?”
And soon the night of weeping
shall be the morn of song.

4 Mid toil and tribulation,
and tumult of her war,
she waits the consummation
of peace forevermore:
till with the vision glorious
her longing eyes are blest,
and the great Church victorious
shall be the Church at rest.

5 Yet she on earth has union
with God, the Three in One,
and mystic sweet communion
with those whose rest is won:
O happy ones and holy!
Lord, give us grace that we,
like them, the meek and lowly,
may live eternally.